On the relationship between the structural and socioacademic communities of a coauthorship network

This article presents a study that compares detected structural communities in a coauthorship network to the socioacademic characteristics of the scholars that compose the network. The coauthorship network was created from the bibliographic record of a multi-institution, interdisciplinary research group focused on the study of sensor networks and wireless communication. Four different community detection algorithms were employed to assign a structural community to each scholar in the network: leading eigenvector, walktrap, edge betweenness and spinglass. Socioacademic characteristics were gathered from the scholars and include such information as their academic department, academic affiliation, country of origin, and academic position. A Pearson’s χ2test, with a simulated Monte Carlo, revealed that structural communities best represent groupings of individuals working in the same academic department and at the same institution. A generalization of this result suggests that, even in interdisciplinary, multi-institutional research groups, coauthorship is primarily driven by departmental and institutional affiliation.

[1]  Thomas A. Finholt,et al.  Collaboratories as a new form of scientific organization , 2003 .

[2]  Alex Arenas,et al.  Analysis of large social datasets by community detection , 2007 .

[3]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  Distance Matters , 2000, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[4]  Edward M. Reingold,et al.  Graph drawing by force‐directed placement , 1991, Softw. Pract. Exp..

[5]  M E J Newman,et al.  Community structure in social and biological networks , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[6]  S. Pierce.  Boundary Crossing in Research Literatures as a Means of Interdisciplinary Information Transfer , 1999, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[7]  Marco Tomassini,et al.  The structure of the genetic programming collaboration network , 2007, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

[8]  Johan Bollen,et al.  Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community , 2005, Inf. Process. Manag..

[9]  Mark E. J. Newman,et al.  The Structure and Function of Complex Networks , 2003, SIAM Rev..

[10]  Reginald D. Smith.  The network of collaboration among rappers and its community structure , 2005, physics/0511215.

[11]  Matthieu Latapy,et al.  Computing Communities in Large Networks Using Random Walks , 2004, J. Graph Algorithms Appl..

[12]  M. Newman,et al.  Finding community structure in networks using the eigenvectors of matrices. , 2006, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[13]  Donald de B. Beaver,et al.  Studies in scientific collaboration , 2005, Scientometrics.

[14]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Publication and cooperation patterns of the authors of neuroscience journals , 2004, Scientometrics.

[15]  J. Moody.  The Structure of a Social Science Collaboration Network: Disciplinary Cohesion from 1963 to 1999 , 2004 .

[16]  F. W. Lancaster,et al.  Types and Levels of Collaboration in Interdisciplinary Research in the Sciences , 1997, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[17]  Hildrun Kretschmer,et al.  Collaboration and distances between German immunological institutes – a trend analysis , 2006, Journal of biomedical discovery and collaboration.

[18]  Shawn M. Douglas,et al.  PubNet: a flexible system for visualizing literature derived networks , 2005, Genome Biology.

[19]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

[20]  Pablo M. Gleiser,et al.  Community Structure in Jazz , 2003, Adv. Complex Syst..

[21]  Weimao Ke,et al.  Studying the emerging global brain: Analyzing and visualizing the impact of co-authorship teams: Research Articles , 2005 .

[22]  Jonathan Furner,et al.  Scholarly communication and bibliometrics , 2005, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[23]  M. Newman.  Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[24]  Bernardo A. Huberman,et al.  Email as spectroscopy: automated discovery of community structure within organizations , 2003 .

[25]  M. Reiser,et al.  3. A Goodness-of-Fit Test for the Latent Class Model When Expected Frequencies are Small , 1999 .

[26]  Mason A. Porter,et al.  Community Structure in the United States House of Representatives , 2007, ArXiv.

[27]  Miranda Lee Pao,et al.  Global and Local Collaborators: A Study of Scientific Collaboration , 1992, Inf. Process. Manag..

[28]  Fabio Pellacini,et al.  Frequency and structure of long distance scholarly collaborations in a physics community , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[29]  P. Bonacich.  Power and Centrality: A Family of Measures , 1987, American Journal of Sociology.

[30]  Weimao Ke,et al.  Studying the emerging global brain: Analyzing and visualizing the impact of co-authorship teams , 2005, Complex..

[31]  Joachim Schummer,et al.  Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology , 2004, Scientometrics.

[32]  A. Agresti.  [A Survey of Exact Inference for Contingency Tables]: Rejoinder , 1992 .

[33]  Chaomei Chen,et al.  Visualizing knowledge domains , 2005, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[34]  J. Sylvan Katz,et al.  Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration , 1994, Scientometrics.

[35]  J. Reichardt,et al.  Statistical mechanics of community detection. , 2006, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.